Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds real behavioral context the annotations don't: it opens an OAuth flow, may not visibly open, has a reconnect fallback, and preserves existing credits. It stops short of stating what state changes on success or how failure surfaces.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and prerequisite, and the Claude Code steps and fallback earn their place. The embedded verbatim user-facing quote ('Say: ...') is slightly awkward but is genuinely actionable, so only minor waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-param, no-output-schema auth tool, the description covers the trigger, the interactive steps, the failure fallback, and the next action. Minor gap: it does not clarify how the agent should detect that sign-in succeeded before retrying create_video.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Description adds no param detail, but none is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Connect your existing Go Rocket account', 'open the connector's OAuth sign-in') and explicitly scopes it as a prerequisite that must happen before create_video. It is easy to distinguish from the video/checkout/sample siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use ('before making a video'), an alternative path for Claude Code (/mcp > Authenticate), and a fallback when no sign-in opens. It also directs the agent back to create_video afterward, so the sequencing is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.